As long as there are heterosexuals, such as my brothers-in-law who, much to my own shame, are intensely homophobic, then there should be a protection against discrimination.

I see this as liberal “earthquake damage” to our society where these cultural divisions are fractures in the crumbling foundation of what previous generations built. What was that old saying – “divide and conquer”? It has proven true in great civilizations throughout history, and we are seeing it happen before our eyes as we continue to divide ourselves into tribes who are at war with each other because groups of us consider ourselves different from everyone else.

Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli have both done the right thing here. J.R. is correct in stating that the executive order issued by Gov. Kaine was not on par with the law. The executive branch simply does not have that authority. I have also seen it suggested that Gov. McDonnell and the Attorney General should not have shifted any of the discussion to those “divisive” social issues during this time of economic crisis. However, like their stand on healthcare and their tough fiscal decisions, this goes much deeper than the fiscal and social debate, and it goes to the heart of the matter of liberty. These homosexual “rights” often lead to infringements on the First Amendment. We have already seen, the government bar Tony Perkins, a former Marine, from speaking at Andrews Air Force base due to his opposition to the repeal of DADT. Not to mention that students at many colleges now find their right to free speech constricted to “free speech zones”! Are none of my libertarian friends upset at these developments? Or are they not socially libertarian federalists, but rather social liberals?

I would not support adding “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes from a legislative point of view either. Because we have already seen the beginnings of what happens when we do that. Liberty is decreased and the state’s power is increased.

am i correct that SB66 only applies to government employers and not private employers?

If this is the case, i see this becoming reality a sooner in upcoming years.

i personally have no idea what the legallity is of the state school policies, but outcomes of the rules themselves aside, if it is true in fact that the schools can NOT impliment such policy without legistlative approval, you think that does not matter at all? And that we should just do things because someone thinks they are good regardless of law?

I thought you guys were calling Bush King George and Bushitler for 8 years because he didnt govern by rule of law? How is this any different in principle if it indeed is illegal for the schools to do so?

But as pointed out earlier as far as pratical asspects, this hasnt changed anything – and the second someone gets fired for being gay theres going to be a huge lawsuit.

That said, there is no reason for the House to not act on SB66 and provide the legislative fix. Obenshain’s argument makes sense but would only apply to anyone unfairly dismissed since McDonnell came to office and Kaine’s policy went out to when whatever solution is finally signed into law. And even then, Virginia, as an at-will state, can find any number of reasons to have fired someone beyond their sexual orientation.

What a lot of folks are missing is that Cuccinelli’s letter has changed NOTHING. Schools will still have their policies, the state is merely advising that those policies may not hold up in court should they be challenged. THIS DOES NOT IMPACT STUDENTS. Many student bodies feel this means their status at school is challenged and that is not the case. It’s an employment policy.

All of that said, the moment someone is fired over sexual orientation, there will be one hell of a lawsuit and I would expect the courts to side with the plaintiff as a matter of civil rights.

I’m getting a bit tired of some people being in a “protected class” and some people not. Whatever happened to “equal protection under the law?”

People need to call their Delegates and Senators and encourage them to vote for the addition of “sexual orientation” into the state’s non-discrimination policy. Not Cuccinelli.